Comments on: Why the Flathead River Gets Protected and the Tongue River Gets the Pollutionhttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/06/why-the-flathead-river-gets-protected-and-the-tongue-river-gets-the-pollution/
The National Wildlife Federation's blogMon, 02 Mar 2015 16:48:00 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2By: Alexis Bonogofskyhttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/06/why-the-flathead-river-gets-protected-and-the-tongue-river-gets-the-pollution/comment-page-1/#comment-18936
Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:02:00 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=81590#comment-18936Steve, thanks for that very thorough reply! There is lots to learn from that campaign.
]]>By: Steve Thompsonhttp://blog.nwf.org/2013/06/why-the-flathead-river-gets-protected-and-the-tongue-river-gets-the-pollution/comment-page-1/#comment-18917
Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:34:00 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=81590#comment-18917Alexis
raises an important question that deserves a thoughtful answer. As someone who
was directly involved in efforts to protect the North Fork of the Flathead from
open-pit coal mining and coalbed methane drilling since 1991, and who has
chronicled the history of the fight that began in 1974, I can offer a few
thoughts. I should also point out that I’m very much involved in protecting the
Tongue River and was part of a group (mostly from western Montana) that
recently met with TR ranchers to boost our understanding of and support for the
fight in SE MT to block the Otter Creek Coal-to-China Mine and the Tongue River
Railroad.

The reasons that the North Fork Flathead is being protected could fill a large
book, but to summarize:

1) We have organized, organized, organized. We built a powerful international
alliance in the 1970s called the Flathead Coalition. They won the first round
of this battle in 1988, and the second most important factor was the passionate
advocacy of local hunters and anglers in the Elk Valley of British Columbia,
many of them coal miners who were damned if they were going to let the
corporations destroy the valley where they go for peace and wilderness on the
weekends. The Flathead Coalition brought together hunters in BC with
hunters/anglers in Montana, as well as civic groups like the Kiwanis, local
businesses such as the auto dealers association, and the usual assortment of
passionate wildernuts, scientists, and committed, clever agency reps such as
Rich Moy and Jim Posewitz.

2) The first most important factor that helped us win the first battle (which
raged between 1974 and 1988), is the Boundary Waters Treaty between the US and
Canada, four years of hard work by a binational team of nearly 50 scientists,
and the unanimous recommendation of the International Joint Commission to deny
the Sage Creek Mine. In both countries, no law is more powerful than an
international treaty, with the exception of the Constitution itself. Without
the effective organizing across the border, the IJC ruling probably wouldn’t
have happened as it did. But without the Boundary Waters Treaty, all the
organizing in the world would not have stopped that mine. The mining industry
is by far the most powerful lobby in British Columbia.

3) After the 1988 victory, the Flathead Coalition in various permutations
continued to work on a transboundary watershed agreement that would preclude
any future mining proposals. In the absence of a specific threat, we kept
pounding on this through 2003 and we kept organizing and providing a positive
vision of the value of a protected watershed. We were successful in lining up
political support on the Montana side of the border. I helped write several
excellent letters for Gov. Judy Martz, for example. However, BC politicians
were a stone wall. When we were hit with tandem proposals in 2004 for open-pit
coal mines and coalbed methane development, we were ready with a well-seasoned
international coalition that had formed strong inter-personal relationships
over the years … and we hit them with everything we had. At every turn we
out-maneuvered and out-smarted the coal industry, the CBM industry, and the
politicians in British Columbia.

4) Our international coalition effectively hammered the coal and CBM proposals
in the Canadian media, and especially in the oil and gas industry press: the
daily newsletters, weekly bulletins and monthly magazines focused on the
industry. We launched a highly publicized invasion of Calgary’s corporate
boardrooms to meet with potential bidders on CBM leases and help them do their
due diligence. (As our BC-MT team was driving to Calgary, we heard a CBC report
about the high-level meetings that were about to happen that afternoon.) Shell
was the company most interested in CBM drilling in the Flathead, and the 12
executives we met with in Calgary informed us they have a high tolerance for
both political and economic risk. But we were hammering so hard in the media
(with the Boundary Waters Treaty on our shoulder) that Shell and all other companies
took a pass on the CBM auction that they themselves had requested. The Province
of BC was stunned and outraged. But that victory set the stage for Gov. Brian
Schweitzer to work his interpersonal magic with BC Premier Gordon Campbell,
which led to the historic announcement during the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.

5) Why did every Montana governor line up on the right side of this issue?
That’s simple. The threat was in the Canadian headwaters of the North Fork. By
a fate of geology and history, the coal in the North Fork is north of the 49th
Parallel. The Canadian Flathead is the headwaters of Glacier National Park.
They get the mine, and we get the shaft. It’s a no-brainer for a Montana
politician. The dynamic is not much different than the transboundary battle
between Montana and Wyoming re: Tongue River water.

6) The dramatic announcement during the Olympics completely changed the
equation. Suddenly, BC had walked away and left $2 billion of fossil fuel value
on the table. Now it was up to the Americans to implement our side of the
bargain, and we’re trying to catch up to BC. That’s what the North Fork
Watershed Protection Act is all about, and that’s why the bill is supported by
Daines, Baucus and Tester and received unanimous bipartisan support in the
Senate committee.

That’s the simple version of the story about how 36 years of persistent and
nimble organizing, aided by geography and law, led to protection of the North
Fork of the Flathead. Some of these lessons may be applicable to the Tongue
River, but some of it is unique to the Flathead.